Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page.

The Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Committee (LJC) has reviewed the proposed rule change R-15-0038 and opposes the petition. The petition is seeking a rule change to place the court in a position to “ensure” the state has met its discovery obligations by engaging in a “colloquy” with the prosecutor. The LJC finds this approach to be of limited value and inconsistent with prior rule changes which have put the discovery process in the hands of the parties without scheduled court actions.

The proposal provides a meritorious discussion about the problems involved with discovery violations and the appellate issues that can ensue. However, the petition also correctly points out that the appellate courts affirmed in many cases the sanction determined by the trial court. While this does not condone discovery abuses it does shed light on the type of discovery violation and the type of sanction which may be appropriate given the nature of the violation.

The LJC view is that to correct discovery violations the rules should be addressed as to hold prosecuting agencies or individual attorneys accountable in a meaningful way when there is a true abuse or violation. This would prove to be a reliable approach to discovery abuses. There is no practical courtroom approach for the court to “ensure” the prosecutor has provided complete discovery. There is no possible way the court can “ensure” the prosecutor has “searched its files” or “the investigating police agency’s files”. How would the court be able to determine if this is the case without clear violations of the separation of powers?

In summary, the LJC sees this issue as one which should be addressed with appropriate sanctions for violations, not the court engaging in a prosecutorial function of ensuring discovery is complete.